Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this time
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Tue, 20 March 2012 21:40 UTC
Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBC121E8017 for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.714, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H7NAnH+OrTi5 for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F99521E8015 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; l=5473; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1332279606; x=1333489206; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to:references: mime-version; bh=NVVamapT9PXnMHuPGJq9pvN7qsh2bzaq7DdnDdp4/K0=; b=ZDcLH+rG8egdQYZvFkXYYy2PGLxv9q1fXVQ3zVNyKDmsGoM9dLSelXRs WPfRw6MWQRh1G4OjLInlhzYjtpJIQYqN5etRPJ3TSKlwfKH4rS6FVi3LR TpTnlMjxxZzbkZE6JNx6uO5t8syLnK4VS28ThtZ+/brRAGWi1vk1MVgcX I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EALT3aE+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABEDrZWgQeCCQEBAQQBAQEPASUCNBsHBBEDAQEBAR4JBxkOHwkIBgESCRmHZwyXY58xkQEEiFabSIFogjBV
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,620,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="36866686"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2012 21:40:06 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8711.cisco.com [10.99.80.18]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2KLe5ud007565; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:40:05 GMT
Message-Id: <201203202140.q2KLe5ud007565@mtv-core-2.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:40:04 -0500
To: karagian@cs.utwente.nl, philip.eardley@bt.com, sob@harvard.edu, pcn@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C150D7@EXMBX04.ad.utwent e.nl>
References: <201203201634.q2KGYPJY020918@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4491D33D-6A78-4341-A334-DFE6C4870C65@harvard.edu> <9510D26531EF184D9017DF24659BB87F331D442A7C@EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C150D7@EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this time
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:40:07 -0000
I know this is a nit, but shouldn't the text actually read Option #1 "... re-mark the DSCP to 000000." or even Option #2 "... re-mark the DSCP to 0." or even Option #3 "... re-mark the DSCP to zero (000000)." or even Option #4 "... re-mark the DSCP to zero (0)." instead of just "... re-mark the DSCP to zero." ? I prefer Option #1, but am happy with Option #3 over the others. IMO this should not remain as it is. James At 02:25 PM 3/20/2012, karagian@cs.utwente.nl wrote: >Content-Language: nl-NL >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C150D7EXMBX04adutwent_" > >Hi all, > > > >I think that the changes satisfy nicely the comments of Adrian! > > > >Best regards, > >Georgios > > > > > >---------- >Van: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [pcn-bounces@ietf.org] namens >philip.eardley@bt.com [philip.eardley@bt.com] >Verzonden: dinsdag 20 maart 2012 17:46 >Aan: sob@harvard.edu; pcn@ietf.org >Onderwerp: Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this time > >Seems good to me. I like the inclusion of material previously in >both the edge behaviour docs > > > >From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Bradner, Scott >Sent: 20 March 2012 16:37 >To: pcn@ietf.org >Subject: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this time > > > >please let the list know what you think > > > >Scott > > > >Scott O Bradner > >Senior Technology Consultant > > > >Begin forwarded message: > > > > > >Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:30:11 +0000 >To: "PCN IETF list" <<mailto:pcn@ietf.org>pcn@ietf.org> >From: Bob Briscoe <<mailto:bob.briscoe@bt.com>bob.briscoe@bt.com> >Subject: New Version: draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt > >PCN folks, > >Following IESG review (particularly Adrian Farrel's being the most >comprehensive and useful), we've posted a new version of the PCN >3-in-1 encoding. > >As well as a number of editorial changes, some technical changes >were needed in order to satisfy Adrian's request to specify exactly >what an implementer has to do at the ingress to allow ECN to >co-exist with PCN, and what defaults should be set to. > >In particular, for a non-PCN packet (i.e. doesn't match any >flow-state) that clashes with a PCN DSCP and is ECN-capable, the >recommended choice of 3 is: > > * re-mark the DSCP to a DSCP that is not PCN-compatible; > > > > >[...] > >In the > > absence of any operator-specific > >configuration for this case, by > > default an implementation SHOULD re-mark > >the DSCP to zero. > > > > >Actually, the whole of the ingress behaviour section (5.1) has been >re-written, incorporating material that was previously repeated in >both edge-behaviours (agreed with IESG and with edge-behaviour >authors, of course). Altho it largely does the same thing >technically, it is written to cover the complete range of possible >scenarios, and it now gives defaults and recommended choices. I >don't think it's controversial, but shout if it is. >< http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09#section-5.1 > > > > >Bob > >PS. Changes From draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-08 to -09: > > * Added note about fail-safe to protect other traffic in the > event of tunnel misconfiguration. > > * Changed section heading to be about applicability of > environments to the encoding, rather than the encoding to the > environments. > > * Completely re-wrote PCN-ingress Node Behaviour section. > > * Changed PCN interior node to PCN-node where the term was > intended to include all PCN-nodes. > > * Clarified status of ECN/PCN co-existence appendix. Removed > inconsistent assertion in this appendix that an admission- > control DSCP alone can indicate that arriving traffic is PCN- > traffic. > > * A few clarifying editorial amendments and updated refs. > > > > >From: <<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>internet-drafts@ietf.org> >To: <<mailto:pcn-chairs@tools.ietf.org>pcn-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, > ><<mailto:draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding@tools.ietf.org>draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding@tools.ietf.org>, ><<mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net>ietfdbh@comcast.net>, > <<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>adrian@olddog.co.uk>, > <<mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>rjsparks@nostrum.com> >Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:52:23 -0700 >Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt > >New version (-09) has been submitted for >draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt. ><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt > > > >Diff from previous version: ><http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09>http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09 > > >IETF Secretariat. > > >________________________________________________________________ >Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design > >________________________________________________________________ >Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design > > >_______________________________________________ >PCN mailing list >PCN@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
- [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this time Bradner, Scott
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Toby Moncaster
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… karagian
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… James M. Polk
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Bradner, Scott
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Bradner, Scott
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Toby Moncaster
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… karagian
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Bob Briscoe